Breaking bad? Playing the fool and constructing the ‘bad researcher’ in entrepreneurship

Q1 Business, Management and Accounting Journal of Business Venturing Insights Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jbvi.2024.e00484
Richard T. Harrison
{"title":"Breaking bad? Playing the fool and constructing the ‘bad researcher’ in entrepreneurship","authors":"Richard T. Harrison","doi":"10.1016/j.jbvi.2024.e00484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>How to deal with grand challenges and the crisis of knowledge production and their implications for entrepreneurial research and practice is a topic of growing interest. In this paper we argue that we need to rethink who is involved in entrepreneurship research and how that research is conducted and communicated. This begins by moving beyond the traditional ostensible objective separation of the ‘researcher’ from the ‘research subject’ to adopt a posthuman and post-qualitative inquiry perspective that questions the dominant position of the human subject and challenges the humanistic belief in the essential, conscious and intentional human as the primary source of agency. As such, it adopts a process ontology, stresses hybridity and difference and encourages experimentation. This requires us to become ‘bad researchers’, undertaking subversive research that goes beyond the oppositions of quantitative/qualitative and foundationalist/non-foundationalist. In this we take the ‘fool’ (jester, trickster) as our guide. Historically associated with inversion, usurping authority and putting down the mighty the fool is a liminal character who has the duty to ask all those questions that no one else dares to ask. The paper concludes with suggestions as to how this may inform a re-newed entrepreneurship for the crisis-laden twenty first century.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Venturing Insights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352673424000362/pdfft?md5=961792f3fd428bce2aee135075c8373e&pid=1-s2.0-S2352673424000362-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Venturing Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352673424000362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How to deal with grand challenges and the crisis of knowledge production and their implications for entrepreneurial research and practice is a topic of growing interest. In this paper we argue that we need to rethink who is involved in entrepreneurship research and how that research is conducted and communicated. This begins by moving beyond the traditional ostensible objective separation of the ‘researcher’ from the ‘research subject’ to adopt a posthuman and post-qualitative inquiry perspective that questions the dominant position of the human subject and challenges the humanistic belief in the essential, conscious and intentional human as the primary source of agency. As such, it adopts a process ontology, stresses hybridity and difference and encourages experimentation. This requires us to become ‘bad researchers’, undertaking subversive research that goes beyond the oppositions of quantitative/qualitative and foundationalist/non-foundationalist. In this we take the ‘fool’ (jester, trickster) as our guide. Historically associated with inversion, usurping authority and putting down the mighty the fool is a liminal character who has the duty to ask all those questions that no one else dares to ask. The paper concludes with suggestions as to how this may inform a re-newed entrepreneurship for the crisis-laden twenty first century.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
变坏?装傻充愣,打造创业领域的 "坏研究员
如何应对巨大挑战和知识生产危机,以及它们对创业研究和实践的影响,是一个越来越受关注的话题。本文认为,我们需要重新思考谁参与了创业研究,以及如何开展和传播研究。首先,我们要超越传统的 "研究者 "与 "研究对象 "表面上的客观分离,采用后人类和后定性研究的视角,质疑人类主体的主导地位,挑战以本质、有意识和有意图的人类为主要能动性来源的人文主义信念。因此,它采用过程本体论,强调混合性和差异性,鼓励实验。这就要求我们成为 "坏研究者",开展颠覆性研究,超越定量/定性和基础主义/非基础主义的对立。在这方面,我们以 "傻瓜"(小丑、捣蛋鬼)为指导。愚人 "历来与颠倒是非、篡夺权威和打倒强者有关,是一个边缘人物,有责任提出别人不敢提出的所有问题。最后,本文就如何为充满危机的二十一世纪重新焕发企业家精神提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Business Venturing Insights
Journal of Business Venturing Insights Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
28 days
期刊最新文献
Supporting refugees: An entrepreneurial resourcefulness approach Mirror neurons and neuroplasticity: The dyadic neurological foundations bridging entrepreneur-level and enterprise-level capabilities Exploring inclusivity in entrepreneurship education provision: A European study Stars everywhere: Revealing the prevalence of star performers using empirical data published in entrepreneurship research Extending behavioral theory of the firm to new ventures: Dispositional optimism as a moderating influence on new product introductions in high-tech ventures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1